mannc

This is generally a true statement, but I think there are exceptions, and this is one of them. If your career hangs in the balance--as it does for Araiza--it's probably worth the risk to put your narrative out there, especially when the other side is dropping bombs left and right in an effort to sway public opinion...assuming you have a compelling story to tell, of course. I believe Team Araiza was caught off-guard and has done a poor job of responding to Gilleon's tactics, and it is probably going to cost Araiza his job, if not his freedom.

Interesting. I had not seen that article. I wonder what "aware of the situation" means? If Araiza lied in response to specific questions the Bills asked him, then that puts it in a different light.

Now you're just parroting the plaintiff's lawyer's talking points. Araiza denies that's what happened. As I said, if he had nothing to do with the gang rape, as he maintains, then there was nothing to tell the Bills about in April.

If he had nothing to do with the alleged gang rape and no one was threatening to sue him at the time, then it’s not reasonable to expect him to tell the Bills anything about it except in response to specific questions. What makes you believe the Ravens knew?

Ok, but remember the time frame. I’ve seen nothing to suggest there was a threatened lawsuit in April, but maybe there was…

Or the opposite…

Again, it’s not at all clear that Araiza knew in April that there was any kind of legal issue to be concerned about, especially if you believe he had nothing to do with the alleged gang rape.

It’s not at all clear that Araiza knew there was any sort of pending legal matter in April.

What is your basis for this statement? Just curious…did he say that?

What was Araiza supposed to tell the Bills (and the other teams) pre-draft? Again, the “Araiza misled the Bills” narrative makes no sense at all.

Ok. I’d read (can’t remember where) that he refused to allow her to be interviewed, which would not surprise me.

Very possible, but that’s a dangerous game. Employer gets scared and cuts employee, there goes your settlement fund.

How do you know they didn’t ask?

The Bills absolutely spoke to her attorney as part of their investigation, as they should have.

Not at all. If an investigation explored all possible avenues, then it was thorough. Again, I don’t know if this one was, but the victim’s refusal to talk to them doesn’t make it less than thorough, especially if they talked to her lawyer.

It was reported somewhere that he refused, as I would expect him to.

They can’t force her to talk, and they did talk to her lawyer, which is the best they could do.

Ok, what’s your opinion on “how the Bills are handling this”? Seems hard for me to believe the team didn’t have enough information when they cut Haack, but if they didn’t, it’s on them, not Araiza.

It’s likely her lawyer would not permit it. I’m sure they asked.

So are you saying you think he was asking the Bills to pay to settle the case? That would be highly unusual, since the Bills certainly couldn’t be held liable for what happened when Araiza was at SDSU…

If the Bills learned new details in the past 24 hours, that’s their fault. They were in direct communication with the plaintiff’s lawyer and supposedly had a crack investigative team on the job. And if Araiza is innocent, he might not have known those “new details.”

But if Araiza is innocent, how would he know the full details of what her lawyer would allege in the complaint? I just don’t buy the “Araiza wasn’t honest with the team” argument. The Bills were in direct contact with the lawyer before they decided to cut Haack. Seems like a way for the Bills to pass the buck for what might turn out to be a really serious organizational failure.

It’s conceivable that the plaintiff’s lawyer only gave the Bills a hint of what was coming, but maybe Araiza didn’t know either, until the complaint was filed. Here’s what I don’t understand: Why was the plaintiff’s lawyer talking to the Bills? Was it as part of the Bills’ investigation or did plaintiff’s lawyer initiate those calls as part of his “settlement strategy”?

Well, the Bills were in direct communication with the plaintiff’s lawyer weeks ago, well before Haack was cut…so they had to have already known that the allegations were very serious…I don’t think the “Araiza misled the Bills” argument makes much sense.

Just curious, what do you think Araiza lied about to the Bills?